2018 (10) TMI 1300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing additions. We notice that on merits itself substantial additions were deleted by higher authorities. Thus the issue itself was highly debatable and substantially fact based. In background of such facts the Tribunal held that this is not a fit case for penalty. No interference is needed. - Decided against revenue - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 981 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2018 - MR AKIL KURESHI AND MR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable? 2. Issue pertains to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Incometax Act, 1961. It was deleted by the CIT (Appeals) and confirmed by the Tribunal. Tribunal in the process observed as under :- 7. With the assistance of the Ld.AR for assessee, we notice that the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in quantum proceedings in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Act. The AO did not allow the deduction towards cost of acquisition on the ground that the assessee has not incurred any cost for acquiring the leasehold rights. We notice that the assessee had acted upon the advice received from a professional for determination of fair market value of cost of acquisition. Thus, we do not see any falsity in the claim of assessee per se. 9. In view of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X